• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Probe: U.S. prosecutors repeatedly abuse the law

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,596
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Federal prosecutors are supposed to seek justice, not merely score convictions. But a USA TODAY investigation found that prosecutors repeatedly have violated that duty in courtrooms across the nation. The abuses have put innocent people in prison, set guilty people free and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees and sanctions.

Judges have warned for decades that misconduct by prosecutors threatens the Constitution's promise of a fair trial. Congress in 1997 enacted a law aimed at ending such abuses.

Yet USA TODAY documented 201 criminal cases in the years that followed in which judges determined that Justice Department prosecutors - the nation's most elite and powerful law enforcement officials - themselves violated laws or ethics rules.

In case after case during that time, judges blasted prosecutors for "flagrant" or "outrageous" misconduct. They caught some prosecutors hiding evidence, found others lying to judges and juries, and said others had broken plea bargains.

Such abuses, intentional or not, doubtless infect no more than a small fraction of the tens of thousands of criminal cases filed in the nation's federal courts each year. But the transgressions USA TODAY identified were so serious that, in each case, judges threw out charges, overturned convictions or rebuked prosecutors for misconduct. And each has the potential to tarnish the reputation of the prosecutors who do their jobs honorably.
Another reason why government should NOT be trusted and only remotely tolerated.

Probe: U.S. prosecutors repeatedly abuse the law
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
845
Reaction score
305
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is why I think we should reserve the harshest sanctions for malfeasant government officials. A slap on the wrist fine and a few months in a cushy prison are not enough of a deterrent; we should be pushing the boundaries of cruel and unusual punishment. Anyone who abuses their power to knowingly send innocents to jail or steal millions of dollars from the American people needs to die a long and painful death that gives nightmares to the most jaded torture enthusiasts.
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why not throw in the hallowed"Presumption of Innocence" ??

Sure it rings like some Golden Passage from the by laws of a perfect socety , but in reality in our Criminal Courts it does not exist - except for celebrities because most of those qualifying(or intereseted) in being seated on a full jury are eithe nonanalytical or have a techno fueled myopia that inhibits common sense. In short those with possibly the greatest objectivity never get thru the Lawyer's Questioning. Most don't want thinking people on the panel.

When you combine that with the prevailng concept by MANY that it could never happen to them - to be the accused OR that Obviously IF it's come this Far (to a Full Trial) that the person must be Guilty - because otherwise he/she would have taken a deal. These views do exist in the Millions and the ADA's know it. They also KNOW that the Police lie under oath, but feel it's okay because Nobody told them to do it specifically.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Most don't want thinking people on the panel.
No, they don't want people thinking unreasonably..... Remember, its beyond REASONABLE doubt, not unreasonable doubt.
If some freak believes in Alien Abductions every time he hears one, I don't want him on a jury believing an alien abduction defense.


When you combine that with the prevailng concept by MANY that it could never happen to them - to be the accused OR that Obviously IF it's come this Far (to a Full Trial) that the person must be Guilty - because otherwise he/she would have taken a deal. These views do exist in the Millions and the ADA's know it. They also KNOW that the Police lie under oath, but feel it's okay because Nobody told them to do it specifically.
Where exactly do you get this information?
From your 4th point of contact?
 
Top Bottom